I am reprinting below, in full, with the written permission of the publication, Fairfield County Weekly's recent editorial describing how Congressman Jim Himes was ambushed by right-wingers in Southport recently (isn't that John McKinney's hometown?), and takes them to task. Very refreshing to see that not all journalists in the Nutmeg State are mindless right-wing ideologues like Ken Dixon.
The New York Times just announced that America's GDP in the first quarter of the year fell at a rate of over 6%, marking the worst six month economic decline since the 1950's. It also marked the third straight quarter of economic decline going back to Q3 of 2008. So it seems altogether proper that we recall the words of that economic genius and former congressman from Southwestern Connecticut, Chris Shays in early September of last year uttered on NPR's Brian Lehrer Show:
"The fundamentals of our economy are strong. No one can disagree with that."
You nailed it, Bucko! How right you were! And let's recall the endorsement of Shays by Brooks Community Newspapers. They wrote that they wanted Chris Shays back in Washington "working on the economy." Yep, we need that economic genius working on the economy voting with every other Republican against the Obama administration's economic stimulus plan. As Sarah Palin would say: "You betcha!"
While I typically focus on Senate races, the special election in New York's 20th Congressional district is an excellent opportunity to stick it to the Republican Party.
NY-20 is a Republican leaning district in voter registration, but has been recently represented by now-Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and even narrowly supported now-President Barack Obama over John McCain.
The Democratic nominee, Scott Murphy, has turned a deficit in the polls into a narrow four-point lead over Republican Jim Tedisco. Momentum is on our side! A victory in this special election wouldn't just be a nice Democratic hold, but, since it is a Republican-leaning district, it would also be a major embarrassment for Republicans, particularly new RNC Chair Michael Steele.
How desperate are Republicans in this race? Well, they're very literally reduced to going with a noun, a verb, and 9-11 in flailingly attacking Murphy. And how loathsome is the Republican nominee? Even the Libertarian candidate, who was booted from the race after - it would appear - Republicans made a concerted effort to get enough Libertarian ballot signatures overturned, has endorsed Scott Murphy. (And it's one hell of an endorsement.)
The special election is this Tuesday! So what can you do to help?
This is a special election, so GOTV is everything. On Monday or Tuesday, if you can spend literally one single hour making calls, that could be the difference in a Republican pick-up versus a Republican embarrassment.
November 21, 2008
Dear Friend:
I am sending this last e-newsletter to express my heartfelt appreciation for the opportunity to serve you and other residents of the Fourth Congressional District for the past 21 years as your representative in Washington.
You and your neighbors have helped educate and guide me through letters, e-mails, calls, office hours, visits, individual conversations and community meetings.
Really? If we have guided Chris Shays, why did he persist for so long against the wishes of his constituents to push for America to invade Iraq? And why, when his constituents were pushing him through "letters, e-mails, calls, " etc. to stop supporting the war, did he continue to support Bush's disastrous war?
The incredible wealth of knowledge you have shared with me has enriched my life and helped make me a better member of Congress.
While this is the last e-newsletter we are sending you because we are required to move out of our Washington office by November 21, I look forward to our paths crossing again soon. All the best.
Christopher Shays
Member of Congress
Before you go, Mr. Shays, please tell us once and for all that you are sorry for helping to send so many young Americans to their deaths in the sands of Iraq. Please tell us that you're sorry for your hypocrisy in saving yourself as a conscientious objector, while sending others to fight. Please tell us now that you are sorry that you pushed for so many years to privatize Social Security when your constituents were telling you for so many years not to do it.
(More nonsense from Kenny... - promoted by ctblogger)
Proving once again what an out-of-touch right-wing rag Connecticut Post really is, its columnist Ken Dixon published this snarky cheap shot at congressman-elect Jim Himes in his Sunday column:
Himes is essentially a 42-year-old blank slate, a Greenwich millionaire who was in the right place at the right time.
Chris Cillizza has just written in "The Fix" in the Washington Post that Connecticut's 4th District could possibly shift from Republican to Democratic. He rates Jim Himes in the top fifty seats likely to change.
He writes:
What's immediately apparent when examining the "second 25" is just how much trouble Republicans are in and how broad Democrats' gains could be. Of the 25 seats on this Line, one (ONE!) is held by a Democratic member of Congress (Rep. Nancy Boyda in Kansas). All told, in the 50 seats that make our Line, 42 are held by Republicans and just eight are held by Democrats. And, rest assured, there were several other Republican seats -- California's 3rd, Florida's 21st -- that could well have cracked the top 50.
Shays denounced the claim that he supported $13 billion in cuts from the Student Loan Program. He pointed to his vote for the Deficit Reduction Act in 2005, which included student loan reforms that will save the government $14.3 billion over five years, and the program was not cut at all. "What happened was we said to the bank, if we are going to guarantee you that you don't lose money from student loans, then you don't get to make an excess profit," Shays said. "And anything above a certain amount goes back into the general fund Instead of it being 13 billion of federal dollars, it's $13 billion of the banks."
In fact, it was precisely because Shays and his Republican buddies actually did stick it to students and parents that incoming Congressional Democrats made cutting the interest rate on federal student loans in half over five years one of their "six for '06" priorities in the new congress. Here's an article I wrote in 2005 that tells the truth about Shays' deciding vote and how education advocates condemned what he did. Shays is always attempting to fool the voters about his real record. Let's make sure the public knows the truth:
There will be a rally for Jim Himes on Saturday, October 25, with special guest Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas), Jim Himes, State Representative Andres Ayala, State Senator Ed Gomes, and State Representative Don Clemons, from 11 am to noon. The rally will take place at East End Democratic Headquarters, 1113 Stratford Avenue, Bridgeport. More information is available at (203)332-6100.
As previously noted on MLN, Bridgeport is the key to this super-important Congressional race. Those who wish to volunteer for the Himes campaign either before the election or on Election Day can contact the phone number above or go to the headquarters in downtown Bridgeport at 1016 Broad St., 2nd floor. See you there on November 4.
Stamford Mayor Dan Malloy called Lee Whitnum "anti-Semitic" at a press conference yesterday afternoon in Stamford. Mayor Malloy was joined at the press conference by Rabbi Marc Disick of Temple Sinai in Stamford, Rabbi David Walk of Congregation Agudafdath Sholom in Stamford and Rabbi Eric Eisenkramer of Temple Shearith Israel in Ridgefield.
According to the Greenwich Post article written by Ken Borsuk, Mayor Malloy stated:
"I've observed this campaign and I've been bothered by this campaign and the things that have been said. I thought for a moment that ignoring this woman and some of the most outlandish thing she's said would be the best policy to not give it more credence but when I saw her statement in the Advocate I found it to be most offensive and taking a full swing at those of us in this country who support the state of Israel...To claim that Israel is somehow to blame for 9-11 is deeply disturbing and quite frankly belies a disturbed sense that Ms. Whitnum has. I also have come to the conclusion that her statements are unfortunately anti-Semitic in their nature...She has crossed the line and is clearly anti-Semitic."
Also disturbing is the silence from Greenwich Time and Stamford Advocate, neither of which carried Mayor Malloy's remarks in their paper or electronic editions, nor even acknowledged that the press conference took place. Let's keep in mind that today's editions of both papers would have carried a column by progressive Democrat Sarah Littman, had she not been fired two weeks ago for calling out Lee Whitnum for her bizarre positions and her anti-Semitism in her column. As many know, GT/Advocate publisher John Dunster seized on a pretext to fire her right after that column appeared. Yet when Stamford Mayor Dan Malloy also forcefully denounces Whitnum for her anti-Semitism, Dunster's papers remain silent. Is there any doubt that GT/Advocate have been sanitizing their coverage of Whitnum, going as far as to pretend that a major statement by Stamford's mayor denouncing her never took place? Ignoring the presence of several prominent rabbis in this congressional district at that press conference?
To call GT/Advocate's sanitized coverage of Lee Whitnum disgusting and unethical somehow just doesn't come close to expressing the revulsion I feel for their commission of unethical journalism and convenient ommission of the facts from their reporting. Let's recall that GT/ADvocate had no problems insinuating that Ned Lamont was anti-Semitic, carrying a front-page article about anti-Semitic postings regarding Joe Lieberman on MoveOn.org's website in 2006, and suggesting that the Lamont camapign was somehow inmplicated. They even highlighted the article in dark gray.
With the acquisition of MediaNews Group's minority stake in a joint venture, George Irish, CEO of Hearst Newspapers, is now directly responsible for Greenwich Time and Stamford Advocate. Let's hope that he is equally dismayed by the low state of journalism at those papers. He works in Manhattan, so let's hope that he takes a special interest in those two papers that are just a few minutes' drive from his office.
A couple of quick bits from Chris Shays' appearance on Where We Live with John Dankosky.
Talking about the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq, Shays stated,
"We have to define what 'leave' means."
This from a guy who in August 2006 told voters that he was in favor of a timeline and was quoted by the Washington Post as saying that most of our troops could be withdrawn by the end of 2007. This from a guy who told voters that he was more anti-war than was Diane Farrell, because he favored a "timeline" for withdrawal.
Both Ways came out with this perfect nugget that really captured the essense of our two-decade congressman:
"Our economy is stronger than people realize. But in my opinion, we are in a recession."
Priceless!
And what about off-shore drilling from the guy who has touted his vote against drilling in ANWR?
"We have to have drilling in our coastal regions."
He was asked why we should trust him to defend Social Security when he had co-sponsored two bills in the 1990's to privatize Social Security, and was one of Bush's earliest and most enthusiastic supporters of Bush's private accounts scheme to dismantle the system. Shays' response?
It's a distortion. He wants to divert one-third of all Social Security receipts to private accounts, but that doesn't mean he's in favor of dismantling the system. Does anyone think that the imminent retirement of the mass of Baby Boomers could be accomodated if we are taking away a third of all receipts from those paying in? Does Shays?
Faux moderate and Bush Neocon Chris Shays will appear on John Dankosky's "Where We Live" live call-in show tomorrow morning (Friday, July 11) on Connecticut public radio's WNPR. In Fairfield County, it is carried on 88.5 FM. Please call in or email your questions for Both Ways Shays.
Call during the Show:
(860) 275-7266
Or email questions and comments to:
wherewelive@wnpr.org
You have to get on the phone early, because Dankosky actually doesn't take many calls from listeners.
Just when you thought the economy had hit rock bottom. The Conference Board, a non-profit global business organization has reported that its consumer confidence index has dropped to its lowest point since the last recession in 1992. The New York Times paints the grim picture:
Tuesday’s data suggested a nation struggling with expensive gas and devalued homes, where people are fearful for their jobs and wary about where the economy is headed.
Any positive signs that economists and forecasters may have cited need to be thrown out the window. Even with the consumer confidence index at 50.4%, down a whopping 7.7% from May, the worst may still be yet to come. This report should be a wake up call to legislators across the country on behalf of a nation in desperate need of more help.
As the economy worsens, more and more key players are getting on board with the idea of a second economic recovery package. But not everyone's where we need them to be to get something done in time to matter. For example Rep. David Obey (D-WI), powerful chairman of the Appropriations Committee free associated to Congress Daily (subscription only) and revealed that he doesn't quite get how urgent doing something to stave off this recession is:
"People use all kinds of terminology; I don't care if you call it a second supplemental or a second economic [stimulus] package -- to me there are all kinds of things that we need domestically -- but we need finish this job [war supplemental] before we can start thinking about the next one"
This pains me. Not only are House Democrats punting on telecom immunity, they're putting war spending ahead of domestic spending.
As I wrote on myDD, Bush's first economic stimulus package just didn't work. We didn't get the big sweeping surge of economic growth we were promised. Even what good news we've gotten was drowned out by a chorus of story after story of bad economic news. The costs of living are growing rapidly as employment becomes harder to find. Food is getting more expensive as food bank lines grow longer. The longer Congress waits to act, the worse things will get.
And the states can't wait for the aid that Democratic leaders say must be included in a second stimulus package either. State spending is the last prop holding up the economy and is at a tipping point. More than half of the states are facing crippling budget shortfalls that total $48 billion for the upcoming fiscal year. In the absence of aid from the federal government, states have been forced to cut vital services for many of our most vulnerable citiznes. The Center on Budget and Policy Prioritiesgives outlines the chopping block:
At least 12 states have implemented or are considering cuts that will affect low-income children's or families' eligibility for health insurance or reduce their access to health care services.
At least 10 states are cutting or proposing to cut K-12 education; three of them are proposing cuts that would affect access to child care.
At least 11 states have proposed or implemented reductions their state workforce. Workforce reductions often result in reduced access to services residents need.
And when states are forced to do things like cut their state workforce, the economy suffers even more. According to CNN/Money:
With falling revenue from sales and income taxes, and property-tax declines looming, states, cities and towns have already laid off tens of thousands of government employees. Many expect more job cuts ahead as public officials struggle to balance their budgets.
Economists say that cutbacks in jobs and spending by local governments could be a major drag on the overall economy.
It's cool that Obey recognizes the need for a second stimulus package. But he also needs to understand that each day he lets pass without doing something means the economic hole we're in is that much deeper and is going to require that much more federal spending to help us get out of.
No, wait! Now I remember. Yes, I really did read the National Intelligence Estimate, and I just reread it. But it didn't have anything that said anything that would really dissuade me from voting for the war. Just a couple of pages in this great big document.
That, essentially, was what Shays said today in the Darien town hall meeting. Yet sly ole' Both Ways Shays neglected to specify whether he was talking about the pure blather in the unclassified NIE, or the classified NIE that was made available to members of congress. To read the classified version, the congressman had to go to a highly secure room near the Capitol, where he could read the report, but not take notes. And, as reported in Frontline's documentary "Bush's War", it was the classified version in which all of the qualifications and disagreements to the administration's intelligence assertions were laid out. If Shays had read the classified version, he would have remembered it.
It seems that Shays is trying to obscure the truth: that he didn't bother to read the classified intelligence, but simply relied on Bush, Cheney, and Rummie.
Nice try, congressman, but you gave the honest answer the first time in Westport last weekend: you didn't bother to read the classified intelligence, and as a result, tens of thousands of Americans are dead and wounded. You made a horrible mistake, and this country will be paying for it for decades.
Last week, Chris Shays released statement promoting his support for a sense of the Congress resolution that bravely took the stand that the United States has an obligation to help those in poverty.
Most of the times sense of the Congress votes come and go with little opportunity for members to take a strong stand. But with the economic stimulus plan in the works, Shays has a perfect opportunity to put his money (or his donor's money) where his mouth is and stand up for a stimulus plan that provides food stamps and full unemployment insurance. The current stimulus plan stripped these provisions, and given Shays' newfound commitment to fighting poverty, now is the perfect time for him to step up and fight for two of the most effective ways to not only fight poverty, but to also provide quick and effective stimulus.
Greenwich Time/Stamford Advocate's latest editorial"Lawmaker right to target homelessness", praises Republican state senator John McKinney for setting "his sights on effectively ending homelessness in Connecticut."
"A rich state", it continues, "Connecticut is beset by persistent problems with people who can't find a home, can't keep a home or are in danger of losing a home. Mr. McKinney, hte Senate minority leader, is proposing what he calls a potential solution to the problem, vowing to commit significant state resources to building hundreds of affordable and permanent supportive housing units across the state"
Great. The problem is that the editorial praises Republican McKinney, while completely failing to mention that the Democratic candidate for Congress Jim Himes, a resident of Greenwich, has spent the past four years of his life working full time to solve precisely the problems of the housing shortage and housing affordability that the newspaper says needs to be addressed. Himes is a national director of Enterprise Foundation, the prominent non-profit organization whose purpopse is to fight the problems of housing throughout the United States. Jim Himes is the man responsible for the entire Northeast region for Enterprise. That organization has invested billions in public/private partnerships to develop affordable housing around the country. Himes also served as the commissioner for housing in the town of Greenwich, striving to convince the town's Republican leadership of the need to expand affordable housing.
So while Republican McKinney was contemplating his navel for the past several years when it came to the housing problem, Jim Himes was out there actually doing something about it. But where was the mention of Jim Himes in Greenwich Time/Stamford Advocate's paean to one of its darling Republicans? Not a word in the editorial even acknowledged Himes' contributions or efforts. Let's be clear: this wasn't an editorial in The Day of New London or equally far-off Hartford Courant. No, this editorial was penned by an employee in Himes' hometown right smack in the fourth congressional district. In other words, the author of that editorial knew full well all about Jim Himes' efforts and accomplishments. The paper just didn't possess the intellectual honesty to tell its readers the truth. No, far better to paint a rosy picture of a Republican politician courageously leading the way for Greenwich Time's largely Republican leadership. Forget honesty; it's the ideological spin that counts for that crew.
Of course, there's far more with which to take issue in that twisted editorial. For example, the editorial states,
"Poor people, though, don't vote, at least not in large numbers; it's mostly safe to ignore their issues come campaign season."
You really wonder where these journalists have been and what they were doing to be so oblivious about the real world. Politicians "ignore their issues"? Not John Edwards, who has been campaigning on a platform of closing the gap betwen the "Two Americas". Robert F. Kennedy cetainly didn't ignore the plight of the poor. President Johnson, who launched the "Great Society" programs to eliminate poverty in America, certainly didn't ignore the plight of the poor. And the Democratic Party as a whole has certainly not ignored the downtrodden over the past eight decades. Could it really be that the editorial's author was unaware of FDR's accomplishments in sharply cutting poverty among senior citizens with his Social Security program? Could it be that he was unaware of the efforts to improve housing for the poor under Johnson? Could he have been oblivious as to the damage done by the Republican Party recently with its passage of the bankruptcy bill in the last congress that made it more difficult for average Americans, who were being financially wiped out by overwhelming medical bills, to get out from under those crushing debts? Suppose not. No, Greenwich Time/Stamford Advocate prove again the old adage that "ignorance is bliss".
But it ain't gonna work. Every time GT/Advocate twist the truth and leave out key facts, they diminish their own fast fading reputations as journalists. Jim Himes is the guy who's been working is butt off to solve the housing problem. Nice to see that McKinney has finally realized that there is a problem. But pretending as if he's the champion here is just plain dishonest. Got that, Greenwich Time?
Over a year has past since Americans went to the polls to unseat Republicans and replace them with Democrats who had promised to change things in Washington, D.C. In that year's time, the electorate that gave Congress the mandate it needed to take action against the Bush administration has seen absolutely nothing accomplished. In fact, Republican initiatives have moved forward at a greater pace than when they were in the majority.
If this seems implausible just recall that the person elected to the position of Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi stated absolutely that impeachment was off the table as part of the Democratic agenda. We should have realized at that time that the newly elected Democratic majority had no intention whatever of interfering with the Republicans.
As Jewish Americans, we do not want to hear one more word about the Holocaust until every Jewish member - in fact every member - of Congress stands up, admits that the US tortures, insists that these patently unlawful practices cease at once, and holds accountable those who have provided the rationale for it (members of the Executive and Judiciary) and those who ordered it (members of the Executive and the Military). In this context, the news that Senators Schumer and Feinstein will support Mukasey's nomination for Attorney General is very troubling.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid are complicit in the crimes perpetrated against the American public, POWs, and the world by the Bush administration. They both had adequate information about crimes that had taken place when they were elected to their positions, but chose to do nothing about them. With each additional revelation of torture, spying, etc. they become more culpable for their inaction.
Immediately upon ascending to the role of Speaker, Nancy Pelosi took Impeachment off the table. Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution reads: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
The operant term here is "SHALL be removed" - not "MAY be removed," as the Speaker seems to suggest by her stubborn refusal to do her Constitutional duty. She and others cite two primary reasons for not pursing Impeachment:
1. The process would interfere with the ability of Congress to pursue other important work.
2. There would be an insufficient number of votes and too little time to achieve the intended result.
(An informative expansion on DemFromCT's diary on Shays' unsteady position on S-CHIP, updated with links. - promoted by tparty)
Look very closely at Congressman Chris Shays' recent actions on the renewal of the State Child Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and you'll understand how he really operates. In September, Mr. Shays joined with 45 Republicans and 220 Democrats to pass the renewal and extension of SCHIP (HR 976, Roll Call #906, September 25), which had just passed the Senate by an overwhelming and veto-proof majority. The bill extends health insurance to the children of poor and working class Americans who can't afford private health insurance, and was credited with sharply reducing the number of uninsured children over the past ten years. Naturally, George Bush vetoed the measure, for which he became the butt of jokes from Jon Stewart, and drew the ire of the AARP, American Medical Association, American Federation of Teachers, Catholic Health Association of America, the March of Dimes, and American Cancer Society, among many others. Following Bush's veto, Mr. Shays promised he would vote to override it, calling the SCHIP extension, "a good, bipartisan bill that is worthy of passage." But as always with Mr. Shays, one has to look behind the curtain to find out what he's really up to.
On the same day that he told Connecticut Post that he would vote to overturn the veto, he voted with his party's right-wing leadership to kill the SCHIP extension he'd just pledged to support. Understanding that the bill was still a few votes short of the two-thirds necessary for an override, the Democratic leadership introduced legislation (HR 976, Roll Call #938, October 3) to postpone the vote on override for two weeks in order to try to convince more congressmen to support it. The Republican leadership, however, demanded that the vote be held immediately, a move that would have meant certain death for the measure. Chris Shays? He voted with his leadership to for an immediate vote that would have killed SCHIP. Moreover, in May of this year Mr. Shays joined 147 other Republican congressmen in signing a pledge that he would vote to sustain any presidential veto of a spending bill that exceeded the president's budget request. In other words, his public pledge to vote for SCHIP notwithstanding, Mr. Shays had already gone on record promising to vote against it. So his vote last week to kill SCHIP was no surprise at all.
Of course, if one understood Mr. Shays' opposition to most sensible health care proposals, his paper-thin support for SCHIP, a program that a WSJ.com/Harris Interactive survey last month demonstrated enjoyed overwhelming support from the American people, including a margin of more than two-to-one among Republicans, would come as no surprise. Mr. Shays also opposed empowering the federal government to negotiate lower prices on pharmaceuticals for Medicare recipients, even though the Veterans' Administration has been able to reduce the prices it pays for the most popular drugs to just 50% of the price paid by private insurance companies. And Mr. Shays went out of his way to support George Bush's unpopular "Health Savings Account" proposal in Bridgeport last year, a scheme that even the Congressional Research Service estimated would not reduce health care costs in America.
Now, might Shays still vote to override? My guess is only if his leadership is assured of the votes to kill the bill. In that case, the Republicans would play "catch and release," permitting him to vote to please local constituents. But if it looks very close, here's betting that Shays will once again stick with his right-wing buddies and vote to kill it, just as he did this week on the snap vote.
MLN is powered by